(published by The Jakarta Post on 16 Feb 2010. Click here)
Our justice system again created a mystery when the judges at the South Jakarta District Court sentenced former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Antasari Azhar to 18 years in prison. The verdict was handed down to Antasari for his role in the premeditated assassination of Nasruddin Zulkarnaen, a director of state company PT Putra Rajawali Banjaran, in 2009.
From the beginning, when the case that enmeshed Antasari showed up in public, during the trial, and until today when the chief judge banged his gavel, the public have kept asking whether Antasari is guilty or not. A similar case was the assassination of human right activist Munir Said Thalib, when the court acquitted former deputy head of state intelligence (BIN) Muchdi Purwopranjono: the case remains a mystery until today. This proves that our justice system never ends with total finality but mystery that makes us always question our claim as a legal state (rechstaat).
Prosecutors alleged Antasari ordered the murder after Nasruddin attempted to blackmail him when he was caught red-handed with Nasruddin’s third wife, golf caddie Rhani Juliani, in a hotel room. Would a person of the caliber of Antasari, who once headed the Prosecutor’s Office in South Jakarta and later chaired the KPK, take the “hackwork” to kill someone because of a sexual affair with a golf caddie? Was the motive behind the high-profile murder as simple as that? We were disappointed as the court kept concentrating on this as the sole motive behind the murder with Antasari accused of attempting to cover up the extramarital affair.
Suppose the affair was true, what was the difficulty in Antasari covering it up without having to commit such a risky act as that? With his performance and achievements at the time he was KPK chairman, when he was hailed by the public for corruption eradication, wouldn’t it have been easy for him to convince the public that he was being blackmailed by Nasruddin? So, ordering the assassination of Nasruddin just because of a golf caddie did not make any sense for Antasari.
The verdict is more confusing when we learn of Antasari’s 18-year sentence. This was the same verdict handed down to Daniel Daen Sabon, one of the five hit men who were sentenced by Tangerang District Court for pulling the trigger on Nasruddin. How come the mastermind received the same punishment as the field operator in this murder case?
If the judges were really sure Antasari was guilty of masterminding the premeditated murder, moreover as a law enforcer who supposedly upheld the law, the judges should have sentenced him to death as demanded by the prosecutor. Otherwise, Antasari should have been acquitted because the judges should have decided only on those two possibilities, i.e. guilty or innocent. A verdict of guilty would give him the death sentence, innocent would free him totally, as there was no “in-between” verdict on such a high-profile crime involving such a high-profile figure as Antasari.
***
Serpong, 14 February 2010
Our justice system again created a mystery when the judges at the South Jakarta District Court sentenced former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Antasari Azhar to 18 years in prison. The verdict was handed down to Antasari for his role in the premeditated assassination of Nasruddin Zulkarnaen, a director of state company PT Putra Rajawali Banjaran, in 2009.From the beginning, when the case that enmeshed Antasari showed up in public, during the trial, and until today when the chief judge banged his gavel, the public have kept asking whether Antasari is guilty or not. A similar case was the assassination of human right activist Munir Said Thalib, when the court acquitted former deputy head of state intelligence (BIN) Muchdi Purwopranjono: the case remains a mystery until today. This proves that our justice system never ends with total finality but mystery that makes us always question our claim as a legal state (rechstaat).
Prosecutors alleged Antasari ordered the murder after Nasruddin attempted to blackmail him when he was caught red-handed with Nasruddin’s third wife, golf caddie Rhani Juliani, in a hotel room. Would a person of the caliber of Antasari, who once headed the Prosecutor’s Office in South Jakarta and later chaired the KPK, take the “hackwork” to kill someone because of a sexual affair with a golf caddie? Was the motive behind the high-profile murder as simple as that? We were disappointed as the court kept concentrating on this as the sole motive behind the murder with Antasari accused of attempting to cover up the extramarital affair.
Suppose the affair was true, what was the difficulty in Antasari covering it up without having to commit such a risky act as that? With his performance and achievements at the time he was KPK chairman, when he was hailed by the public for corruption eradication, wouldn’t it have been easy for him to convince the public that he was being blackmailed by Nasruddin? So, ordering the assassination of Nasruddin just because of a golf caddie did not make any sense for Antasari.
The verdict is more confusing when we learn of Antasari’s 18-year sentence. This was the same verdict handed down to Daniel Daen Sabon, one of the five hit men who were sentenced by Tangerang District Court for pulling the trigger on Nasruddin. How come the mastermind received the same punishment as the field operator in this murder case?
If the judges were really sure Antasari was guilty of masterminding the premeditated murder, moreover as a law enforcer who supposedly upheld the law, the judges should have sentenced him to death as demanded by the prosecutor. Otherwise, Antasari should have been acquitted because the judges should have decided only on those two possibilities, i.e. guilty or innocent. A verdict of guilty would give him the death sentence, innocent would free him totally, as there was no “in-between” verdict on such a high-profile crime involving such a high-profile figure as Antasari.During Antasari’s trial, there was public suspicion that he was a target of the weakening the KPK, as the powerful institution in the war against corruption. One of co-defendants, senior commissioner Wiliardi Wizard claimed in court he had been set up by his superiors at the National Police headquarters who were trying to bring Antasari down.
Antasari has committed to file an appeal. It will be a long journey for him to seek real justice. He may win, he may lose. No matter what will happen to him, whether he wins or loses, it is not easy to answer this question: Is Antasari the good guy or the bad guy? It remains a mystery.
***
Serpong, 14 February 2010
Titus J.
Comments